desmondchan
New User
3) Now the final match. No fancy machines were on site to check serving speed but it was apparent both players served just as well as they did in the 2nd match. The difference was movement. Especially for Pete when he knew he didn’t need to save his energy and he ran for every ball he could possibly get. The crowd was also a factor. Almost everyone was rooting for Pete and even though there were some Roger’s fans there they were very quite. The crowd did a big job in carrying Pete through the 1st tie breaker. There was no “letting Pete win” from Roger. Watch closely and you would notice Roger attacked almost all Pete’s 2nd serves whenever he found his chances. He made Pete ran for his shots. There was no mercy! Also he wanted to go head-to-head with Pete and wanted to win in a very convincing fashion. Whenever Pete scored a winner on the net, it was crystal clear; black and white; that he was in control of that point and won. (Unlike when some current pros win some rallies against Roger by hitting miracle shots which you wonder whether they could do that again…). Remember they had a long rally in backhand slices? You could see they want to beat each other in each other’s game. You have to be blind of not noticing that if you were there in person.
Lastly my humble view is it is an insult to Pete if folks say Roger just let him win but it will be a bigger insult to Roger himself. Nobody wants to beat Sampras more than Federer and you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to understand with their pedigree; status; skills and yes, friendship and respect for each other, they would have done their very best when playing each other. Otherwise, what’s the point of Roger inviting Pete to go half way around the world to play?
So who’s the better player? It really depends on how you define it. I still think even though today’s pros are stronger; faster (due to more resources available/advance in technology in physical/skills training, etc…) then ever before with better equipment (rackets and most importantly; the poly strings!!!), the guys just don’t know how to win! And that’s part of the factor that Roger will win more Grand Slams then Pete or anyone else. But having seen him playing live I am convinced with his talent; he could also very well be one of the bests to compete with past legends from any generations to win his fair share of slams. No doubt!
But if one want to figure one who would win more if Roger play against Pete both in their primes then here’s my take. Yes. Roger is a more complete player with more shots in his arsenal. But Pete also does what he does best (serve and volley) and it’s the fact that even when he is 36, he could still win his share of points in his match against Roger. So my view is it really depends on the surface and the background (the way they were being brought up/trained). French Open? Roger would win 9 out of 10 for sure. It’s not because Pete is less talented on clay, it’s just that being an American player in the 90s clay was just not the focus. I am sure if Pete grew up in Europe and had more exposure in clay, he could have achieved better results. Fast grass of Wimbledon? I would have to say Pete would edge Roger 6 to 4. The court in Macau was the fastest among the 3 hence Pete’s game edged Roger’s. But it’s fair to say the gap between them on grass is much smaller than on clay. Hardcourt in Aussie/US open? Again, it would depend on the speed and largely on the their conditions of the day.
So I guess Pete is right – no one would dominate each other if they play against each other during their prime. Last thought – to say Pete can’t beat Roger even in his prime is rubbish, but Roger also has the skills/hearts/qualities/results to be the greatest player of all time if that’s what the circumstances become. I am still a Pete’s fan but after seeing Roger live in action, I only respect and love the guy more than ever before!!
Lastly my humble view is it is an insult to Pete if folks say Roger just let him win but it will be a bigger insult to Roger himself. Nobody wants to beat Sampras more than Federer and you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to understand with their pedigree; status; skills and yes, friendship and respect for each other, they would have done their very best when playing each other. Otherwise, what’s the point of Roger inviting Pete to go half way around the world to play?
So who’s the better player? It really depends on how you define it. I still think even though today’s pros are stronger; faster (due to more resources available/advance in technology in physical/skills training, etc…) then ever before with better equipment (rackets and most importantly; the poly strings!!!), the guys just don’t know how to win! And that’s part of the factor that Roger will win more Grand Slams then Pete or anyone else. But having seen him playing live I am convinced with his talent; he could also very well be one of the bests to compete with past legends from any generations to win his fair share of slams. No doubt!
But if one want to figure one who would win more if Roger play against Pete both in their primes then here’s my take. Yes. Roger is a more complete player with more shots in his arsenal. But Pete also does what he does best (serve and volley) and it’s the fact that even when he is 36, he could still win his share of points in his match against Roger. So my view is it really depends on the surface and the background (the way they were being brought up/trained). French Open? Roger would win 9 out of 10 for sure. It’s not because Pete is less talented on clay, it’s just that being an American player in the 90s clay was just not the focus. I am sure if Pete grew up in Europe and had more exposure in clay, he could have achieved better results. Fast grass of Wimbledon? I would have to say Pete would edge Roger 6 to 4. The court in Macau was the fastest among the 3 hence Pete’s game edged Roger’s. But it’s fair to say the gap between them on grass is much smaller than on clay. Hardcourt in Aussie/US open? Again, it would depend on the speed and largely on the their conditions of the day.
So I guess Pete is right – no one would dominate each other if they play against each other during their prime. Last thought – to say Pete can’t beat Roger even in his prime is rubbish, but Roger also has the skills/hearts/qualities/results to be the greatest player of all time if that’s what the circumstances become. I am still a Pete’s fan but after seeing Roger live in action, I only respect and love the guy more than ever before!!